Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Heads or tails, Obama loses
WASHINGTON - On the eighth anniversary of the launch of United States military operations in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama spent a good part of Wednesday deliberating with his top advisers on what is likely to be one of the most momentous decisions of his tenure: the future of US involvement in that war.
A US Marine writes in his journal at a makeshift patrol base in Farah Province, southern Afghanistan. With the appeal for reinforcements in hand, US President Barack Obama could start talking about committing yet more troops to the unpopular war later this week after a wide-ranging strategy review, the White House has said.
(AFP/David Furst) His military commanders on the ground, led by General Stanley McChrystal and
the head of the US Central Command (Centcom), General David Petraeus, are
reportedly urging Obama to increase the number of troops deployed to
Afghanistan from the current 68,000 to over 100,000 as part of a comprehensive
"counter-insurgency" (COIN) strategy.
They and their supporters, both within and outside the administration, have been arguing for weeks that the Taliban's resurgence can only be defeated by a major infusion of US combat troops and the implementation of a new strategy focused on securing the population and providing it with essential services. But some of Obama's civilian advisers, notably led by Vice President Joseph Biden, are urging a less ambitious "counter-terrorism" (CT) strategy that would maintain US troop strength at current levels while stepping up Predator drone strikes and special forces operations targeted at key Taliban leaders and their al-Qaeda allies both in Afghanistan and in their safe havens in neighboring Pakistan.
The CT advocates argue that increasing the number of US troops could have a counter-productive impact on public opinion in Afghanistan, especially among Pashtuns, the country's largest ethnic group, from which the Taliban recruits its foot soldiers. The US military mission in Afghanistan should increasingly be devoted to training and building the country's national army and police force, in their view.
They also argue that the billions of dollars required to finance a major US troop build-up could be put to more effective use in persuading nuclear-armed Pakistan, and particularly its powerful army, to cooperate more closely with Washington's CT efforts and to act more aggressively against its own Taliban insurgency, which is believed to harbor top al-Qaeda figures.
Apart from ruling out any substantial drawdown in US troop levels in Afghanistan - which he did during a meeting with senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Tuesday - Obama has not yet tipped his hand.
His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Obama's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan (AfPak), Richard Holbrooke, are believed to lean somewhat more in favor of the COIN strategy, while Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who many analysts believe could turn out to be the single most influential voice in the debate, has characteristically kept his cards very close to his chest.
At the same time, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a former congressman who is particularly sensitive to growing Democratic concern on Capitol Hill that Afghanistan could turn into a Vietnam-like quagmire, is reportedly leaning toward Biden's view, as is Obama's increasingly influential deputy national security adviser, Thomas Donilon. Donilon's boss, General Jim Jones, has reportedly acted primarily as an honest broker.
Republicans, led by their failed presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, have strongly backed McChrystal, whose bleak analysis of the current situation in Afghanistan and recommendation for a major troop increase, was leaked to the Washington Post last month. Since then, McCain and other hawks have repeatedly pressed Obama to urgently grant whatever the military formally requests. "Time is not on our side," he reportedly told Obama during Tuesday's meeting.
With some exceptions, the Democratic leadership in Congress is much more wary and has become increasingly vocal in their skepticism about the COIN approach since the leak, which many Democratic lawmakers saw as an attempt by McChrystal and Petraeus to force Obama to accept their recommendation.
The public case against the new COIN approach has also been bolstered as details have emerged about the widespread fraud committed on behalf of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the August 20 elections. Karzai, whose government was already seen as increasingly corrupt before the poll, is now being depicted as an unreliable partner for the kind of comprehensive strategy envisaged by COIN advocates.
"[O]ne assumption of the proposed counterinsurgency plan is that our troops and civilians will be working in partnership with a legitimate and reliable government in Afghanistan," wrote Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the Wall Street Journal last week.
"After the deeply flawed presidential election last month, we must ask whether we can succeed if our partner is weak and viewed with deep suspicion by his own people," he noted.
Even some Democratic hawks, such as Michael O'Hanlon, a military-affairs expert at the Brookings Institution who served in the White House under Bill Clinton but subsequently supported key decisions by George W Bush during his so-called "global war on terror", have cited the current Afghan government under Karzai as a valid reason for skepticism.
"If there's any one lesson from Vietnam we should remember, it's that we need a viable indigenous partner," he warned during a recent talk to a neo-conservative group that strongly supports a major escalation. "We can do everything right, and if our partner doesn't do its part, we're not going to succeed."
But the COIN advocates insist that Washington has no choice because, as they ritually note, Obama himself called the Afghan war a "war of necessity", rather than one of choice.
In an updated version of the Vietnam-era "domino theory", they argue that Washington cannot afford to permit the Taliban, which they see as inextricably tied to al-Qaeda, to return to power or even gain sway over substantial portions of Afghanistan where they could provide al-Qaeda safe haven, because the consequences would be regional, if not global.
"A Taliban conquest of Afghanistan would endanger the Pakistani regime at best, create a regional crisis for certain and lead to a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda at worst," according to David Brooks, an influential neo-conservative columnist at the New York Times.
For their part, CT advocates do not see the Taliban as a monolithic force forever linked to al-Qaeda. They also point to major successes in recent missile attacks against key al-Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban operatives inside Pakistan as strong evidence that Washington can effectively disrupt and ultimately defeat al-Qaeda without putting more of its own troops on the ground.
With Congress and his own advisers so deeply divided, most analysts here believe that Obama will try to reconcile the two strategies by adopting elements of both, including an increase in the number of troops, but not so many as the 40,000 that McChrystal and Petraeus reportedly want. That would be consistent with his decision last March to approve the deployment of an additional 17,000 combat troops to Afghanistan out of the 30,000 requested by the military brass.
But both COIN and CT advocates agree that such an approach will likely lead to serious political problems, not so different from those confronted by president Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War.
"Half-measures is what I worry about," McCain said after Tuesday's meeting. "[They can] lead to failure over time and an erosion of American public support."
"It's the worst of a set of bad options," wrote Stephen Walt, a prominent international relations scholar at Harvard University, on his blog at foreignpolicy.com.
"If things eventually go south [as I believe they will], he'll get blamed for not giving the commanders enough to do the job and for incurring additional costs to no good purpose. Yet this approach also means he won't get the credit for taking a bold decision to cut our losses and get out," Walt wrote.
Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
- Posted in
70 Comments so far
Show AllThe absurdity of these "discussions" would be laughable if the consequences of American policy weren't so deadly. Simply put, there are no legitimate moral, legal, and/or strategic reasons for our brave military heroes to keep slaughtering people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The debate is fueled by self-interested "experts." The only interest not represented is that of the American taxpayer.
Afghanistan was never a "safe haven" from which terrorist attacks were launched against the United States. Even according to the official conspiracy theory of 9/11, the evil-doers trained primarily in Florida and California. As for the cowardly drone attacks, is there ANY independent reporting on the identity of the victims of these war crimes? How do we know that the vicims aren't 100 per cent innocent civilians? How does the presence of the American military in Afghanistan influence Pakistan? So what? Wouldn't all of the tax dollas paid to fund the war pigs be better spent domestically?
You said it well, monroematt!
52 per cent of our U.S. budget is in the bloody hands of the Pentagon, and all the profits [WAR IS A RACKET! - General Smedley Butler] go to the people rolling in dough as it is.
Just imagine if some real money was spent FOR THE PEOPLE in this nation for a change.
And how come these supposedly intelligent bimbo advisors to the President only discuss two choices. Why not the third of GETTING OUT OF THERE?
I have yet to hear Obama explain why our being in Afghanistan is "a war of necessity."
In his campaign he was talking about the necessity of finding and killing the evil and wicked Bin Laden and his cohorts. That seemed the major mission. I winced at Obama's ignorance and denial. Yet I voted for him, thinking that perhaps this was a bone for the independent hawks, and he really knew better. Only occasionally now is Bin Laden mentioned, since he seems to have died in December of 2001. Very difficult to drag a high tech dialysis machine through the mountains and hook it up in a cave evidently. Now that is absurdity.
FOLLOW THE MONEY TO BE MADE AND SEE WHOSE POCKETS IT ENDS UP IN. The Bottom line.
INSANITY, STUPIDITY AND MORAL DEPRAVITY. THAT'S OUR "GOVERNMENT." THE GOOD OLD U.S. OF A.
As you say, "The absurdity of these 'discussions' ... "
peace, cm
Kinda screams out at you that a real investivation of 9/11 is urgently needed, doesn't it?
That is why your questions are falling on deaf or incomphrensive ears because such an investigation would have answered them several years ago and if we had a truly functioning law enforcement, judicial and penality system working there would be a lot of americans sitting in jail or already executed with egg all over their faces, but instead the opposite is real, the criminals on the outside and everyday more of the innocent people being put inside.
Obama cannot lose if he chooses withdrawal. Thats a win-win situation.
Actually a guest on the Bill Press show made some good points about withdrawing that make it obvious that even withdrawing is a losing scenario.
In a nutshell he said, a) US withdrawal would obviously be portrayed as defeat, which would serve as a rallying cry to AQ/Taliban/etc., b) withdrawing involves putting troops in severely increased harms-way because there's always a huge dismantling of equipment, and c) the locals work with the Taliban to keep them informed of every US military move. As soon as the withdrawal/dismantling began, they'd swarm in with increased attacks.
So, it's truly a no win situation.
It was always a no win situation. You are correct about the problems and casualties from withdrawal, but thats better than continuing for 4 more years and withdrawing anyway. But remember its far easier to defend a fixed position in the areas we would be taking things out.
Lets just stop wasting these young lives.
Kane
The comment you reference was made by Richard Haas, who happens to be the current head of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So much for an honest assessment.
Obama doesn't have the power to order withdrawal. They would kill him or reveal that he has sex with three-year-old aliens or whatever it took. He knows his place. He's the fall guy for all the disasters the MIC and the banksters have brought on us. Most of Congress is to the right of Obama. And most of the people (including me) have no idea what to do to change the situation.
You my friend have hit the nail on the head. I have this notion that as soon as someone gets into the White House, they're "paid a visit". They're told the parameters within which they can operate, and what will happen if they don't. And it really amazes me that so many pundits would discount this idea. Or rather, how many take what they hear in news reports, news conferences, etc. at face value. Are they that naive to think this president, or any president, would really telegraph all the info they have on every situation?
Further ranting...if Michael O'Hanlon thinks that the primary lesson of Vietnam is that the key to US success in such endeavors is a viable domestic partner, then he has the analytical skills of a mango. Vietnam did not threaten the United States. The only legitimate reason for war is self-defense. You can only fool the American people for a few years regarding such matters. After that the shelf-life on the war propaganda runs out. So, the "one lesson" from Vietnam, should have been to not engage in illegitimate wars...particularly if they cannot be won without a full commitment of money and human cannon fodder.
It is a sad commentary, that O'Hanlon is considered an expert.
While it seems you can only fool the American people for a few years on any given matter, you CAN fool them over and over and over and over and over again using the same tactics.
I think he was probably just thinking of the historical fact that no country can occupy or subdue another without the cooperation of the government or the people or without absorbing them as per the example of Rome.
IMO, you owe the mangoes an apology.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Duplication removed.
i love when obama loses, lol
I don't. I lament that he is a shallow, educated idiot without the depth and breadth of a much more seasoned understanding, a truly compassionate heart, and a spine that is made strong from moral integrity, and the vision to see the right and then act courageously FOR THE PEOPLE in the face of the fire-breathing dragons that infest all levels of our government and financial institutions.
We all lose with a loser. Review the reign of GW.
peace, cm
Okey-B-Bedokey Cee Miracles!!!!
"Beware of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup"
Yeah, Henry8, I know, but that's the risk one must take. With a moniker of Henry8, you ought to know that or at least "the wives" should have known.
cm ; - )
I'm lucky the wives didn't get me!!
Cee Miracles...The person you are describing is DENNIS KUCINICH! I am in 100% agreement with your comments.....as always. If DK was in charge, real change would still entail a long uphill climb. I realize this. The reason of course, is because he would have to constantly watch his back, for assassination attempts would be rampant. This world is not yet ready for a man of Peace! Besides, this country is not run by the President. It is run by the money...as we know.
I have been waiting for Obama's decision on this military surge or sway and thought any "Hope" I had left would hinge on his decision. I have changed my mind! Hope is belief in things unseen. Hope is what all of us who believe in Peace need to set before our minds eye and watch continually. We need to care for and nurture it like a baby. It is OURS! Peace is what we are hoping for....whether in this life or not! All that is left to us now in this United States is the hope that one day all this horror will come to an end. Our country has gone mad! Hold within you the seed necessary to rise above this craziness! If hope comes out of your mouth...who knows, it might be contagious! It might set a trend that will change the world! What else do we have? Fight? Ok! Die? Ok! After that? There's nowhere to go! The world is unhinged!
Everything could be so different! There is so much beauty...even in a simple thing like a walk in the woods. We should all be crying in mourning for the darkness that has grown to this horrible point! I have come to the conclusion, out of (believe me!) agonizing contemplation, that there is really nowhere else to turn but within. When that seed of hope grows in you, then send it out to the universe. It will be used for good.
You're right about Kucinich. Unfortunately, the morons who vote in the US would never accept a president who wasn't tall and handsome.
Remember the "Street Walking" bit that Leno used to do on his show? Those are the imbeciles who decide our elections.
Inanna - Yes, we're pretty much on the same page.
I was a district coordinator for Kucinich in 2004 in wintry, dark days in a huge, huge, mostly rural area extending from northern Cattaraugus county to Elmira , up to Rochester, etc. I had no idea the extent of the district and just a few weeks to get something like 800 signatures on petitions from Democrats for him to run for President, and the District is pretty much Republican all the way. My car died at the end, but The Man was worth it, and just before midnight, I delivered to the out-of-town-in-the-other-direction airport's express post office a scrupulously gathered bunch of petitions and verifiable signatures [with some help] and felt good because no effort is wasted in the long run.
Such a great soul Dennis is, but the way things are with the media and the electoral system as it is and the corporate dollars needed, not a chance for someone of his calibre to become president. Most folks who I approached for signatures had never heard of him.
However, in these even more dire times now, I reminded myself last night after I'd read articles on the likelihood that mega-bunker buster bombs would be dispatched in the not-too-distant-future to destroy Iran's fledgling nuclear-facilities, which I do believe are not for bombs, but for alternative energy, and then articles on the coming food shortages and all that good stuff, I reminded myself that what feeds me is not my little self called Carol, but something so much greater that when asked, gives strength and joy and heart and endurance. And I asked, as I have done in the past.
I reminded myself also to keep the faith that there is a Beating Heart, a Constant Heart in the universe from whence comes the most beautiful, magnificent creations. We, as such a juvenile human species yet, are learning to make choices, which may in the end destroy us and even the home we live on, the latter at least temporarily. But The Beat goes on and on and on.
I do happen to believe that there are more kind and good folks on this planet than the other kind, and that's got to be worth something. I reminded myself that the Creator does not think like a human. Egotistically we have made "God" into our own image and assigned in particular scriptures all the traits of an insane human being, with a few good ones here and there too. It's almost funny how we delude ourselves.
Yes, when the seeds of hope and love and compassion grow in you, send them out into the universe. But actually it is an interchange, a connection, because the UNIVERSE has planted its own seeds in you and over time they have grown and prospered.
I love it all. It's/ITS all perfect ... regardless, and it's a process, an eternal process.
One gorgeous little planet in one medium-size galaxy of approximately 360 billion known galaxies, and everything changing constantly.
What's to lose really in this great PLAY Ground called ETERNITY that goes round and round like the Great Mandela it is?
But for now as incarnated human beings who are somewhat awake, we have a choice, ... to be passionate about helping to cultivate and realize the goodness of self and the goodness of all and for all or shut down in denial and fear and anger. It ain't easy, but nobody said it was.
Keep the faith. As long as you are breathing and are being breathed, there's hope you'll keep becoming a better human being than you were last month or last year. And that's what counts for each of us and that makes all the difference in the world ... in the Universe.
And The Beat goes on.
Love & peace to you, et al.
Cee Miracles
Cee....you warm my heart.
Caleb...I remember Leno's stunt. I wonder if those people are truly being candid or did Leno pay them to look stupid! It's really very perverse. If the average person is really that stupid....there's not much hope for understanding to suddenly bring us all to the tipping point of higher consciousness! But, if this is a trick that Leno is paying for....how diabolical to present this false picture to us...to let us all assume everyone is just too stupid to get it. It's propaganda of the worse sort. We might just as well all give up....since everyone else is so stupid...what chance do we have? Why would anyone want to promote such a negative reflection of the human race?
Yes, and you got me thinkin... like in the saying "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good folks to do nothing".
Well, Imagine how many of the good people who did nothing in this picture lacked the spirt to do something but retained hope.
So to me Hope is not enough. Without the fire of spirit it is just a passive wish.
I heard a quote from Wood Allen today on Wmnf in Tampa, "I felt a lot better when I abandoned Hope."
I agree with you, Jim, if hope is just hope and you don't do anything to help realize the hope.
I read it somewhere in a Buddhist-oriented teaching or maybe Eckhart Tolle ... don't remember, but it stuck with me as something to give up as a passive activity, especially if one kept hoping [dreaming] and wouldn't face a particular reality or refused to get involved or get on with one's life hoping instead for "the dream" to come true.
Faith, I think, is different because it requires such a leap of consciousness and can take you exploring to the center, to the edge of the Universe. Nothing is there and Everything is there.
On "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good folks to do nothing": In our current situation, but going back quite aways, a particular group, let's say, wanted money, power and control of just about everything. Mechanisms were in place to create smoke and mirrors, and truly most "good" folks don't have the same ambitions and don't think the way people with massive self-serving objectives think.
So the daily business as usual goes on, and then particular choice points are reached and whammo ... SURPRISE!
In the meantime, the SURPRISE! begins to turn into a nightmare and there is much confusion and still people don't get how it happened, but now they are busy coping with their individual or collective nightmare.
Wonderful essay on "The Good Germans." Don't have the reference anymore, but so many changes came, major ones and little subtle ones, and so fast and like anywhere so many levels of society were involved, ... and the propaganda was intense, and when all was in place, most people did not resist because their very lives and their families' lives were now at stake. SURPRISE!
I guess we each do what we do and many of us do not do what we might do.
Currently how many issues, how much complexity, how many levels?
Not making excuses for anybody, but I can't judge others. I'm not walking in their moccasins.
We are all so different. Some of us really pay attention and we gather lots and lots of information; some who have gathered that information, truly get it, and then are impelled to step out there in some form of activism which may or may not have much effect, but they keep on keepin' on.
As the 20th Century became the 21st, so much hope those first few days ...
'Nuf ...
peace, cm
A wonderful comment and superb summation of Obama's character, or lack of it.
I repeatedly posted that Mr. Obama would not order the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. I repeat, repeatedly. Nobody should be surprised by this.
When will Progressive organizations do something smart, instead of futile tricks such as MoveOn's completely stupid email-the-White House idea?
Afghanistan is only part of the puzzle, and cannot be solved without dealing with the big picture.
And that would be the DAFT war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, set in motion by Public Law 107-40.
Progressives continue to waste America's precious time by aiming at the wrong target.
That only helps the moronic cretins in Congress, who do nothing to solve the mess they created (except Barbara Lee, who alone voted against P.L. 107-40)).
Our despicable lizard-brained Congress-people only waste time until election season begins (when unhappy voters will again re-re-re-re-re-elect them back into Congress to continue to do nothing for us).
I refuse to join this Progressive/Democrat game of wishing everything from Santa Obama and then tearing him down for not doing the impossible.
-"After the deeply flawed presidential election last month, we must ask whether we can succeed if our partner is weak and viewed with deep suspicion by his own people," he [Kerry]noted.
Don't worry lad, if too many Afghans see Karzai for what he is, Obama can just replace him with another puppet.
As for 40 000, 80 000 more troops or whatever. Don't sweat it. The point is not to "win". The point is to have a lucrative job waiting for McChrystal and his buds when they privatize themselves. And for that, he has to keep the gravy-train running. If there were no permanent war, there would be no massive war contracts and without those, America could not keep repeating the mistake of attacking poor people around the globe.
Tell your congressperson you will not vote for them if they fund the AFPAK war or if they do not vote for public option.
This article quotes a hell of alot of nonsense.
Al Qaeda, it exists at all, is estimated at a couple of hundred.
The Afghan Taliban would be Pakistans geopolitical partner, thats why the ISI continues to support it.
The Taliban have no use for Al Qaeda, if it exists, except to drive out the invaders.
If anybody uses a Pakistani nuke it will most likly be the ISI on the invaders.
Agreed. Al Qaeda was never allied with the Taliban. The government's own intelligence says there are fewer than 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and who knows who they really are, if they actually exist. The Taliban already control 80 percent of the country. Why are we fighting them? Because they want us out. Why are they fighting us? Because they want us out.
This war was criminal and insane from the beginning. We have no rational excuse for being there.
What a win-win for the most fiendish elements of the MIC. Not only do they railroad the empty suit into escalating to keep the funds flowing for now, but they ensure his loss in 2012 no matter whom they put up on the other side (there is zero chance of "winning" in Afghanistan and the corporate media will make sure the empty suit is blamed for the failure to do that no matter what he does). That could enable the MIC elites to go for broke and choose the most reckless and bloodthirsty warmonger available to run in opposition, aka Rudy Giuliani, to really get things going.
The article underestimates the hate generated by killing so called leaders with drones.
Chances are, they are leaders well liked by the locals who knew them.
The evil of judging from the air, who lives and dies, is a reflection of the occupying country. "We are here to bring DEMOCRACY to your country!" Show you how our legal system works!
Notice carefully how all these esteemed experts from academia, think tanks, and the Congress never, ever make any mention or even sidewise reference to the fact that the US presence is centered on maintaining control of the oil and gas resources of the Caspian basin/Middle East region--the most vast on earth. As Pepe Escobar has so well described it in his essays: Pipelineistan. The politicians and their academic and think tank lapdogs constantly divert attention with supposed al Qaeda and Taliban threats to the US. Well, yes the citizens of Afghanistan don't want the US invaders in their homeland and are resisting. Never let any speaker or Congress critter tell you about the threats without reminding them that you understand the basic fact of resource control and grab that actually motivates the US presence in that entire region. And, as others point out, endless wars are endlessly profitable for the few, who have never shirked from taking blood soaked funds.
if everyone connected the fact that the USA military empire - which is really the "gangsterism" that General Smedley Butler talked about to push "our supernationalistic capitalism" abroad -
the consider this:
a SECOND article today, concerning the report from the independent.uk by Robert Fisk - which is generally believed to be well in the ball field about the "china/russia/arab oil states/brazil/japan/france" secret meetings to dislodge from the use of the Dollar as payment currency -
has a curious statement also:
"the ARAB oil states, particularly the SAUDIs (..'that the USA state department decades ago secretly threatened not to have military support against the israel threat unless they promised NEVER to use any other currency OTHER than the dollar for oil') " have now looked at the USA as campaigning AGAINST the arab WORLD".........
imagine if that is correct. the saudis will clearly be ready to get rid of their complacency as USA "military proteges"...if their main fear is "israel" or even "iran".
why?
SHOULD france enter this arrangement - china and russia can easily compensate , along with france, whatever military "withholding" from the USA with THEIR military gear..plus the advantage of none of them havign to waste precious sovereign wealth MERELY to service the Dollar merely to pay their transactions to each other.
Germany - in the end - with its Euro can not remain outside of this arrangement - since IT is too dependent on RUSSIA which is IN this arrangement and would NOT dare risk Russia's ire concerning Germany's oil and gas needs and terms of payments.
what better way than to scuttle ITS own "dollar servicing" in place of using the "basket of currencies" which include the EURO and Germany's OWN gold holdings?, along with yuan, YEN, Rouble, and whatever "Regional currency" the Saudis print to represent THEIR contribution to this basket?.
basically - as seems to have bene confirmed by a very highranking Hongkong Banker - "IT IS TOO LATE for the USA to do anything..."
or another from the mainland saying:
"our discussions are now too far gone to be stopped".
put that together with the USA's LOSS of revenue from PetroDollar servicing and the "repeat investments into the US treasury and bonds" that Petro Dollar SErvicing system , by definition has imposed for decades.....
where will the USA get its funding for CONTINUED support for its
"HIGH CLASS MUSCLE ENFORCER" , its "GANGSTER" Enforcer as General Smedley Butler called it for its "money racket" that is ITSELF beginning to be dumped?.
if this arrangment indeed is as it is intended -- and gets into action - There is a possibility that the DIMINISHMENT of US power will be quite swift -- no , not to the point of being a "WEAK country" -- but certainly enough to CURTAIL much of the USA"s bragadoccio to a great enough extent compared to what it is still threatehing to do.
YET - even as we speak probably - as the USA has become made aware of this new "rival system" which of course can't be expected to just change things completely overnight - or may - the USA's OWN "gangsterism" will have to be refocused on
no longer JUST trying to control those "markets" and "pipelinistan" conduits
but also to try to stave off the Move to the new "currency arrangment"
as it DID with Hussein.
and YET --
except for dropping more bombs --- what CAN the USA really do in the long run to try and hang on to its empire?
teh answer, i believe , is
ZERO.
already it is NOT BEING PERMITTED to do so by powers who are NOT in the mood any longer to be the USA's puppets....or be CALLED "threats" to peace by the USA .....such as China, russia, iran, etc....
and THEY happen to hold the cards, and the DOLLARS that the USA owes them , as well as the markets and energy that the USA doesn't exactly OWN.
whatever obama, congress, the state department, pentagon, and even US corporations are thinking about "USA" dominance forever........
imo, even as the USA escalates its wars for resource and domination.....
THAT "dominance" is effectively OVER and there is simply NOTHING the USA can do about it..NOT EVEN if it demonstrated or "promised" to change its ways - which it WILL NEVER admit to having to NEED to do, even IF that were the ONE thing it NEEDED to do.
it's been exposed - by its own behavior - as practically the TRUNK of THREATS to the world ..rather than the opposite as the USA tries to coerce the world to accepting...
that the other countries or regions can not even DREAM of matching COLLECTIVELY , much less individually.
and whatever obama and the USA power structure think - they are dreaming a dream that's already been punctured by reality.
Assuming the official story that Bin Laden directed 9/11, you have to admit, he knew his enemy. And in a way, he was smarter than Obama/Bush/Congress combined.
Outnumbered, outgunned, out-technologied, he knew the best way to beat a superior adversary was to let them defeat themselves. He knew the US government was two things: addicted to it's MIC, and basically a dumb macho stud who'll never admit defeat.
It's just very sad to see someone as intellectually brilliant as Obama miss the forest for the trees so badly. The only other option I see is that he and others DO see the forest but can't get out for reasons never discussed in public.
Yes, even if bin Laden was the mastermind... but now the FBI/CIA doesn't even think he was.
The above article tells the truth about where 9/11 was funded, planned and the hijackers trained in the USA.
The fairy tale they want us to believe was that the world loved The Empire of WAR until those evil al-Qaeda came along and attacked us not for our policies of military and resource dominance, and support of Israel against the Arabs but because these cave dwellers who the US put in power, just "hated us for our freedom".
The Racket of War still Rules the Planet.
Intellectually brilliant? You mean intellectually malevolent.
And "dumb macho stud who'll never admit defeat" doesn't describe the US. There's nothing macho about dropping bombs from 10,000 feet on innocent civilians. "Dumb coward bully" is more accurate.
Why are gas and oil never mentioned in the talks over what to do in Afghanistan?
Outside of us being in Afghanistan as an energy pipeline protection force, I do not see the purpose of our being there. 8 years ago it was to find Osama bin laden, still no luck, and he is probably in Pakistan and the guys who rammed the planes into the WTC trained in Dresden ,Germany as well as the USA. Then there is the argument that we got to get them there or else they'll come here and create havoc. But people can prepare to attack the US from anywhere in the world-- Af/Pak, Dresden, New York or ???.
What was needed in Afghanistan was police/spy work; not invasion. Our military overthrew the Taliban-- the mainly Pushtun group, and Afghanistan's largest minority (43%), and put the smaller minority Tajiks in power. Guess what? The uproar continues .
Solution-get out now as our being there only causes more friction and let the Pushtuns and the Tajiks work it out.
Unless, of course, we're there as a energy pipeline protection force. Even so, this is a bad neighborhood for us to be in. China and Russia want their energy routes in this part of the world and we want ours. India and Pakistan are killer enemies and we are foolish to step in the middle of it. So, if oil and gas is your game, then fight it out in this tough arena and the hell with the toll in deaths and revenue--if not, get the hell out.
Unless, of course, we're there as a energy pipeline protection force.
=======
the USA is there OF COURSE for the energy pipeline .
as Pepe Escobar has numerously written about, writing from "the ground" in that region - with far more "ground knowledge" than ANY US pundits or washingtonians -
writing for Asiatimesonline, this IS and always has been about PIPELINISTAN and RESOURCE WARS.
I long, long ago suspected that the reason the USA is in the middle east and then in Central asia, the caucasus...
for the purpose of what else, but the OBVIOUS, just by looking at the map of the world:
SURROUND , encircle Russia and China, "contain" them - while controlling the energy routes and resources as part of its global empire.
how else could it be, since that has been the characteristic of the USA for centuries now? its growth as an economy and military power attests to THIS very fact.
they are one and the same thing:
"gathering resources of the world unto ourselves at the expense of others" -- as General Smedley Butler said, as well as
"making the world safe for our Supernationalistic Capitalism , our MONEY racket , and our cultural and economic assault".
what ELSE do people REALLY need to know?
more DETAILS? more "confirmation?"
1) Dollar Hegemony, imposed on the world to control its financial structure and render nations as SUPPORTERS of US deficits, UNcompetitive trade, UNfair practices and US generated DEBT for its supposed "american made prosperity"...
that is basically making someone ELSE PAY you for the privilege of your STEALING from HIM. that's what US Dollar manipulation has been all about - called famously as "the US FEDERAL BANK interest rates". and DOLLAR PRINTING...also known from James Baker under reagan:
"we PRINT the DOLLARS and it's YOUR problem" to the world
2) EMERGY and resources:
what does Russia contain? gas , oil, uranium, the greatest forestry and riversystem in the northern hemisphere, other natural resources, monstrously huge real estate that would open up with global warming...WHY did Madeleine albright jealously , LITERALLY JEALOUSLY, 2 decades ago:
"it's so UNFAIR that ONE country has ALL those natural resources...something OUGHT to be done about it"? that was RUSSIA
3) CHINA - "contain" her - well --e veryone knows the USA LOVES to "contain" countries that don't bow to US dictates - and NATURALLY would try to do so with china that just happens to be speeding towards becoming the world's greatest economy and PICK UP from where it was SUPPRESSED by the USA and western imperial powers since over 100 years ago , NAMELY - China's RIGHTFUL national destiny as the world's premiere economy and society by its SHEER size and age and potential--AND
THAT DRAGON HAS awakened .much to the USA's annoyance!
4) OTHER countries, whether Energy producers or not, consumers or exporters -- they have ALL been FORCED to SERVICE THE US ECONOMIC Expansions throughout history THROUGH a combination of Dollar Manipulation and Financial manipulation BACKED UP by MILITARISM, in THREATS and Intimidation as well as destabilizations.
so -what ELSE do people really need to know that this - the USA's policy making
"has always been designed to render other nations PERMANENTLY SUBJUGATED to our will and that of our Chamber of Commerce...ours is a VERY VERY VICIOUS system of exploitation that Dehumanizes and Enslaves People Everywhere"...( JOHN PERKINS, Former CIA "economic hitman) ?
it's ALL THERE spread across the globe AND across TIME whereEVER the USA is present.
the USA is "there" as it is "there" elsewhere for so long now
doing what it always has been doing and been:
"WE ARE GANGSTERS FOR CAPITALISM" -- General Smedley Butler, US MArines, 1933.
China's "rightful" destiny due to size and age and potential? So, imperialism is great and fine, as long as it is China that is being imperialistic.
As for size, age, and potential, India, can match China on that. What about India's rightful destiny?
No one has a "rightful" destiny just because they are big and old.
"NATURALLY would try to do so with china that just happens to be speeding towards becoming the world's greatest economy and PICK UP from where it was SUPPRESSED by the USA and western imperial powers since over 100 years ago"
China was hardly the world's greatest economy before the western imperial powers intruded on it.
As I advocated some years ago regarding Iraq, we could probably withdraw from Afghanistan with few casualties. If we would meet with the leaders and declare a cease fire, coupled with our packing up and leaving the country in, say three or six months, they would probably go along with it, as long as we didn't prove as treacherous as we usually do.
There would no doubt be some incidents, such as revenge killings, but if we proved that we would only fire in self-defense, and they could see we were actually packing up, they would find it in their own interest to have a cease fire. They just want invaders and occupiers OUT of THEIR country. They are willing to shed their blood in enormous quantities to achieve that end. Don't you think that they would welcome a chance to achieve it without more blood, death and destruction?
Of course, nobody listened regarding Iraq and I am sure that they are not interested in a solution in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but I really think it would work.
It would work because it is based on Common Sense and the Golden Rule.
We spent less time in World Wars I and II and Korea combined than we have wasted so far in Afghanistan. When things go this badly Carl Jung says to Look in the Mirror for the reason.
The capitalist and militarist factions of the US elite establishment are far deeper in cahoots today than during the Vietnam era. Back then the USA was industrially strong. Today the USA needs war just to keep its economy afloat. The militarists are helping to fight the class war to keep the elites in control of the US economy. Second agenda item is the "great games" for Central Asian resources. Plus various other interests, large and small, are served such as AIPAC's egotistical perception of control. The terror threat is only a pretext, as the elites know fully that the terror threat is ultimately beneficial to their interests. And as long as they keep the petro-opiates flowing in the USA, they will have USans' consent.
genicon
Obama will never send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, ( all at once)
No way , 10,000 now, 10,000 later, 10,000 when that doesn't work, and 10,000 as a last resort.
See how easy it is to satisfy everybody.
This is just like the health insurance reform "debate": single-payer advocates were not invited.
Those advocating withdrawal are not being heard.
You know that famous table where things are ON or OFF or UNDER? Those who want single payer or withdrawal from anywhere are not invited to sit AT that table. It is much too powerful for a piece of furniture.
Joe
There is also the PTFTON option as well:
PULL THE FUCKING TROOPS OUT NOW
and dis-engage from empire building, murder, stealing others resources, violations of the Geneva convention, etc.
at this point, i think the only thing anti-war/anti-empire people can do is get on our knees and pray for economic collapse, because short of that, nothing is going to stop this bloodthirsty war machine.